Do you think an argument is truly justifiable without any substantial form of evidence at all, although it may sound rational?

https://steemitimages.com/DQmPCgMhJEm9XiHQRX3BeeYJt7sPFFhfEW4EN2QXSQxYTH8/image.png

Burden of Proof

Philosophy often gets a bad reputation because, unlike science, it can start with speculation and end with speculation. That is, philosophers can assert nonsensical claims with absolutely 0 justification and their work can still be considered genuine philosophy. Fortunately, philosophers have developed something called: "the burden of proof"; essentially, the principle of the burden of proof statistics that the claimant (the one making a claim) is under an obligation to provide reasonable evidence or supporting argumentation for his or her claims. Conversely, it also states that the skeptic (the one the claimant is attempting to prove a claim to) is under no obligation to disprove a positive proposition until, and only until, proper evidence has surfaced.

Difference between Ignorance and Absence of Proof

The argument from ignorance is an argument which states that a proposition is false based on the fact that there is no evidence supporting such a statement. * **Evidence of absence** is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Moreover, I would argue that the argument from ignorance is valid in many cases. For example, imagine you are to claim that 500 men will destroy the United States tomorrow; tomorrow passes, and the United States has remained intact. The absence of evidence, in this case, can safely be said to be evidence of absence. - *"In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."* — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95"

Problems

Most of the time a big part of philosophy is to see with subjective eyes, it involves reason which operates from an inner level, dare I say intuition? See this is where I get kinda ticked, people disregard anything that seems too far out of the realm of facts and science. I mean the basis of philosophy is analyzing your ideas relative to life. Your relationship towards life doesn't come from outside of yourself. I leave you with a quote: https://steemitimages.com/DQmSfRfxwR13KNJc2FH7aZhQDFkrTRvRFKzkPSwd5Umw1FK/image.png **What are your thoughts? Thank You for Reading**